IETF Logo Mail Archive

[nasr] 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120

Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com> Thu, 01 August 2024 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: nasr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nasr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD45C14F71E for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNhW6YIFvh8y for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta4.chinamobile.com [111.22.67.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3797CC14CF17 for <nasr@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[10.188.0.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee466aaf8f790d-a61fc; Thu, 01 Aug 2024 10:54:48 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee466aaf8f790d-a61fc
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc-PC (unknown[223.104.40.196]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr07-12007 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee766aaf8f65a7-3f32f; Thu, 01 Aug 2024 10:54:47 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee766aaf8f65a7-3f32f
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 10:54:48 +0800
From: Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
To: 刘鹏辉 <liupenghui1982@163.com>
References: <202407231553159277592@chinamobile.com>, <514b701e.3dbe.190e2e04151.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.9.115[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <202408011054476926448@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_001_NextPart175440773538_=----"
Message-ID-Hash: KEV4CKUCLPZ4MFWOJ3FXJBQKS3IYHBBG
X-Message-ID-Hash: KEV4CKUCLPZ4MFWOJ3FXJBQKS3IYHBBG
X-MailFrom: chenmeiling@chinamobile.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "nasr@ietf.org" <nasr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [nasr] 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
List-Id: Network Attestation for Secure Routing <nasr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nasr/AbNXC-g96CvMXHeqq3Fj06HvcRY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nasr>
List-Help: <mailto:nasr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nasr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nasr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nasr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nasr-leave@ietf.org>

Hi penghui,

"Data no going abroad" such regulations are quite common, like GDPR, CCPA and CPRA, TTDSG and so on.

Best,
Meiling

发件人： 刘鹏辉
发送时间： 2024-07-24 11:54
收件人： Meiling Chen
抄送： Luigi IANNONE; nasr@ietf.org
主题： [nasr] Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
Hi Meiling,

Your case is very reasonable, clarifies what data rquired to be forwarded through the network characterized by the specific path selection requirement of NASR.
If we could provide one or more citations to prove the existence of this requirement "Data not going abroad", then this use case would be more convincing. 

There was once a news that the US government hoped to build a clean network plan where data would only pass through designated networks" clean path", see https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-clean-network/ .  Is this unamiable example used to prove this use case? NASR could sove this problem?  just my two cents, hope this helps....






At 2024-07-23 15:53:16, "Meiling Chen" <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com> wrote:
Hi Luigi,

Secure Routing Path Consideration, Please find my slides attached.


Best,
Meiling

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status